Cui bono? Who benefits?

Who is really the public for "instructional technology"? It's worth considering that it's not primarily teachers, though they can certainly make use of its tools and toys in what they do. There certainly are aspects of "instructional technology" that can energize, augment, complement what teachers already do, but I doubt that "instructional technology" can transform a ho-hum teacher into a dynamic teacher.

On the other hand, access to the same basket of technological possibilities can unleash the creative powers of a student whose performance in traditional classroom activities is indifferent. It's by no means guaranteed, but the shift to thinking of the technologies as augmenting learning frees us from the limitation of thinking of the tools as better (flashier, more appealing) ways to package lessons or construct alternatives to the full frontal lecture. This, in short is why I prefer "learning technologies" as a label for the overall enterprise.